DOCUMENT RESUME
ED 456 255
CE 082 235
AUTHOR
TITLE
PUB DATE
NOTE
AVAILABLE FROM
PUB TYPE
EDRS PRICE
DESCRIPTORS
IDENTIFIERS
Comley, Les ; Arandez, Leoni; Holden, Sue; Kuriata, Ewa
Are TAFE Organisations Learning Organisations? Do They "Walk
the Talk"?
2001-03-00
1 5p . ; In: Research to Reality: Putting VET Research To Work.
Proceedings of the Australian Vocational Education and
Training Research Association (AVETRA) Conference (4th,
Adelaide, Australia, March 28-30, 2001); see CE 082 232.
For full text:
http:/ /www . ave t ra . org . au/ PAPERS %202001/ COMLE Y% 2 0 ARANDE Z % 2 OHO
LD EN% 2 0 KURIATA . pdf .
Reports - Research (143) -- Speeches/Meeting Papers (150)
MF01/PC01 Plus Postage.
Academic Education; Adjustment (to Environment) ; Adult
Learning; Comparative Analysis; Definitions; Educational
Attitudes; Educational Change; Educational Environment;
Educational Needs; Foreign Countries; *Lifelong Learning;
Literature Reviews; Needs Assessment; *Organizational
Climate; *Organizat ional Development; Position Papers;
Postsecondary Education; Professional Development; Rural
Areas; *Staff Development; Teacher Improvement; Technical
Institutes; Trend Analysis; Universities; Urban Areas;
♦Vocational Education; Vocational Education Teachers
♦Learning Organizations; *TAFE (Australia)
ABSTRACT
A study examined whether Australia's technical and further
education (TAFE) institutes are currently learning organizations or on the
road to becoming learning organizations. Data were collected through a
literature review and a questionnaire administered to staff at two
dual-sector universities, two metropolitan TAFE institutes, and two
rural/regional TAFE institutes. Of the 79 respondents, 24.1% were general
staff, 65.8% were teaching/teaching support staff, and 10.1% were senior
managers. The majority of respondents in all three categories agreed with the
following statements: (1) TAFE staff are lifelong learners; (2) TAFE
organizations are learning organizations; (3) TAFE divisions of dual-sector
universities demonstrate the characteristics of a learning organization more
strongly than single-sector TAFE institutes do; and (4) rural/regional TAFE
institutes demonstrate the characteristics of a learning organization more
strongly than metropolitan TAFE institutes do. The percentages of respondents
who believe that their TAFE institute exhibits various characteristics of
learning organizations were as follows: provide learning opportunities for
staff, 91.0%; have a shared organization vision, 84.8%; are open to change,
79.2%; manifest interunit cooperation, 65.4%; offer team learning
opportunities, 71.5%; and develop human capital, 72.4%. It was concluded
that, although the respondents considered their organizations to be learning
organizations, additional evidence is needed to definitively support that
contention. (Contains 10 references.) (MN)
Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made
from the original document.
(N
VO
vn
Q
w
Are TAFE organisations learning organisations? Do they
'walk the talk'?
Les Comley, Leoni Arandez, Sue Holden and Ewa Kuriata
Victoria University
PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND
DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL HAS
BEEN GRANTED BY
TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES
INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)
1
The Centre for Curriculum Innovation and Development is located within
the Technical and Further Education (TAFE) Division of Victoria
University. It is involved in the development of Training Packages,
learning resources and professional development for TAFE staff both
internally and externally. As an outcome of its local and national
activities, the Centre has identified the need and observed some
movement towards change within the TAFE workforce and institutes.
TAFE institutes and teachers are key components of the strategy to grow
individuals, organisations, communities and states into learning sites
embodying the principles of lifelong learning. However, there is a
perception that these institutes and their staff are experiencing self-doubt
and confusion about their role in the evolving learning environment. This
paper seeks to position TAFE institutes on the basis of responses from
TAFE staff within six such organisations with regard to their own
development as learning organisations.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Office of Educational Research and Improvement
EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION
/ f CENTER (ERIC)
This document has been reproduced as
received from the person or organization
originating it
□ Minor changes have been made to
improve reproduction quality.
• Points of view or opinions stated in this
document do not necessarily represent
official OERI position or policy.
c\)
Uo
'O
Introduction
As a ‘cradle to grave’ process, Lifelong Learning empowers individuals
to acquire and confidently apply, all the knowledge, values, skills and
understanding that they require throughout their lifetime.
In a similar way, Lifelong Learning can assist communities to build civic
participation, caring citizenship and economic resilience, while for
organisations Lifelong Learning can foster greater innovation,
competitiveness and productivity.
“Lifelong Learning for all” is also required by the Government as a key
strategy for ensuring the State’s successful participation in the global
knowledge economy.
... to create a cohesive, dynamic and inclusive ‘State of Learning’ [or the
learning state]. (Ralph 2000)
Global competition and technology have dramatically changed the workplace. In an
effort to create and sustain competitive advantage it is imperative for organisations
to focus on learning as a lifelong challenge. TAFE organisations are constantly being
challenged by the dynamic environment in which they exist and an essential
characteristic required for survival is the capacity to model characteristics of lifelong
learning and learning organisations, which will ultimately underpin the
development of the learning state. TAFE organisation representatives, most notably
the teaching staff, must demonstrate these characteristics.
2
BEST COPY AVAILABLE
This paper adopts the perspective that to create a learning state, various
requirements must be implemented through educational organisations and their
teaching staff. The paper focuses upon one segment of the education industry - TAFE
organisations - and questions whether they are up to the task. Are these
organisations staffed by lifelong learners who participate in organisations that are, or
are becoming, model learning organisations - do they in fact walk the talk?
Literature review
Organisations are undergoing fundamental shifts in the ways they conduct business
(McGill and Slocum 1995). Today's organisations are knowledge-based. They are
designed to process ideas, experiences and information. In many industries, the
ability to learn and change faster than the competition is the key to survival. The
pace of change will continue to accelerate. The learning organisation is a
revolutionary way to think about strategy, structure and service. To bring about such
a dramatic change in behaviour, every available organisational resource must be
focused upon learning.
A learning organisation has a culture and value set that promotes learning. A learning
culture is one in which there is clear and consistent openness to experience,
encouragement of responsible risk taking in pursuit of continuous improvement and
willingness to acknowledge failures and learn from them. A learning culture is not
captured in a slogan-based mission statement crafted by a consulting firm.
A broad definition of learning facilitates knowledge transfer by encouraging
discussion of the development aspects of every possible kind of experience. 'What
did you learn?' is a question that encourages sharing, even from failed job
assignments, seminars and customer visits. Casting a wide net as to what is learning
has the further advantage of broadening the issue of who is developed.
In a learning organisation, everyone is involved in learning.
Kirnane (1999) proposed that the challenge for organisations is to ensure that they do
not suffer from too much data and too little knowledge. The barriers of the industrial
era hierarchies need to be replaced by processes that enable systematic knowledge
sharing. Organisations need to evolve into units in which there is a free flow of ideas
and more use is made of their external information sources.
Fisher and White (2000) have defined organisational learning as being;
... a reflective process, played out by members at all levels of the
organisation, that involves the collection of information from both the
external and internal environments. This information is filtered through a
collective sense-making process, which results in shared interpretations
that can be used to instigate actions resulting in enduring changes to the
organisation’s behaviour and theories-in-use.
Organisations are social entities (Fisher and White 2000) in which individuals
interrelate and create a 'collective consciousness', and organisational learning is:
... emergent from interpersonal and/or behavioural connections and
modelled in terms of the organisational connections that constitute a
3
learning network rather than as information transfer from one individual
to another. (Glynn et al 1994, p 56)
In his 1999 publication, Kearns has argued that VET needs to broaden its scope in
'response to the anticipated changes of the 21 st century' (1999, p vii). Lifelong
learning needs to be the ruling paradigm. Such an approach is agreed internationally
with the focus of a knowledge-based society being dependent upon its human
capital, which in other contexts may be referred to as intellectual capital (Ferrier and
Whitingham 2000).
Advocating the application of a broad definition, Kearns (1999) argues that lifelong
learning is an evolving concept, viewed as both an educational and social practice.
The UK Green Paper (1998, in Kearns 1999) argues that:
We have no choice but to prepare for this new age [Lifelong Learning] in
which the key to success will be the continuous education and
development of the human mind and imagination.
Such an outcome would require society to be characterised by . . different qualities
from those required in the past industrial and service economies' (Kearns 1999, p 1).
Such a society would be a 'developed learning society in which everyone should be
able, motivated, and actively encouraged to learn throughout life' (Kearns 1999, p 1).
VET is required to develop a humanist approach in which people, particularly its
people, and their individual development, are the key focus for the way ahead.
Kearns (1999, p 8) concludes that VET as a system '... still exhibits signs and
symptoms of a system in transition,..' . Moreover:
[T]he orientation of reform has been towards implementing a training
paradigm whose roots, though modified, lie in an industrial society -
while the learning aspects of reform have been relatively neglected (1999,
P 8).
VET can contribute to the development of organisations by becoming a point of
convergence for the '... three pillars of a learning society' (Kearns 1999, p 14), formal
education and training, the enterprise sector and the community sector. "The more
linkages and connections that can be forged between these sectors, the richer will be
the outcomes for stakeholders' (Kearns 1999, p 14). To undertake this role, VET needs
to be aware of the role of the workplace in forging and leading change. Furthermore
it is in the workplace that a need for continuous learning, employability,
competitiveness and the enhancement of human capital are most evident. VET needs
to respond by addressing the needs of the workplace, including those of the largest
employer group: small business.
To achieve these goals, however, the workplace needs to encourage, support and
reward learning. An environment supportive of people and teams, a strategic sense
and vision and broad definition of roles foster a learning culture. Kearns (1999)
determines that a learning organisation embodies these features.
So the challenge for Australia, individual communities, their constituent
organisations and individuals laid out by these writers is that no one part can
succeed without demonstrating the characteristics of the next lowest level, similar to
Maslow's hierarchy of needs. The 'hierarchy' referred to here is illustrated by the
following diagram - the Hierarchy of the learning state:
Figure 1: Hierarchy of the learning state
This hierarchy emphasises the notion of interconnectedness, or - as some writers
may describe the relationship - convergence. It assumes that without lifelong
learners, you cannot have a learning organisation. Without learning organisations
you cannot have learning communities which must exist for there to be a learning
state.
The policy impetus of the education industry, which includes TAFE organisations, is
expected to provide the necessary drive to support the evolution of the Learning
Society. 'The new TAFE is thus constructed as an organisation with norms, values
and modes of conduct that are largely indistinguishable from those of private
organisations' (Chappell 1999, p 10). Given this requirement and the rationale
underpinning the Hierarchy of the Learning Society, TAFE organisations need to be
learning organisations, and as learning organisations, they need to be predominantly
populated by lifelong learners.
The question this research activity sought to answer is:
Are TAFE organisations learning organisations?
In answering this question, the following hypotheses were developed:
• TAFE staff are lifelong learners
• TAFE organisations are learning organisations
• TAFE divisions of dual sector universities more strongly demonstrate the
characteristics of a learning organisation than do single-sector TAFE institutes
• Rural/ regional TAFE institutes more strongly demonstrate the characteristics
of a learning organisation than Metropolitan TAFE institutes.
Methodology
The following data collection methods were used to answer the research questions:
Literature review - As part of our methodology, a literature review was undertaken
aimed at soliciting various views, frameworks and experience in relation to learning
organisations and lifelong learning. From the literature, a theoretical framework was
established around which the questionnaire was developed.
Questionnaire - A questionnaire was the primary data collection tool used to
identify quantitative data and a limited amount of qualitative information from
respondents. The use of ranked evaluative statements and tick-box responses
enabled respondents to complete the questionnaire easily and to ensure a consistent
response format.
The characteristics of a learning organisation and lifelong learners identified by
Kearns (1999) were used as the basis of the questionnaire's construction. These
characteristics are shown below.
Kearns' profile (1999, p 29) of the learning organisation includes the:
• provision of learning opportunities for staff
• building of a shared vision
• demonstration of openness to change and adaptability
• adopting of a systems perspective
• valuing and support of team learning
• commitment to the development of human capital.
Kearns (1999, p 13) profiled the lifelong learner as having:
• an inquiring mind and curiosity
• 'helicopter 7 vision
• a repertoire of learning skills
• a commitment to personal mastery and ongoing development
• interpersonal skills
• information literacy.
6
Sample
The questionnaires were sent to dual-sector universities (2), metropolitan (2) and
rural/ regional (2) TAFE institutes. The participating organisations were:
Dual-sector universities:
• Northern Territory University (Darwin, Northern Territory)
• Swinburne University of Technology (Melbourne, Victoria)
Metropolitan TAFE institutes:
• Central Metropolitan College of TAFE (Perth, Western Australia)
• Kangan Batman Institute of TAFE (Melbourne, Victoria)
Rural/ regional TAFE institutes:
• Mt Isa Institute of TAFE (Mt Isa, Queensland)
• Sunraysia Institute of TAFE (Mildura, Victoria)
The dual-sector universities provided data from their respective TAFE sectors.
The following sample sought responses from each of the participating organisations:
• the most senior TAFE manager (or another manager from the senior group)*
• five general staff (non-teaching)
• 15 teaching staff (covering a cross section of the organisation's programs).
*Note: this group was treated as non-teaching as its members rarely deliver
teaching/ programs to students
The ratio of teaching to non-teaching staff sought for the sample may not be
representative of the employment patterns within TAFE organisations. For example,
in Victorian TAFE institutes . the general pattern is that most Institutes have
approximately 40% of their EFT workforce as non-teachers and 60% as teachers'
(PETE 2000, p 48). However, a premise of this paper contends that TAFE teachers
will most directly influence students to embrace or ignore the principles of lifelong
learning that underpin the development of learning organisations. Therefore, the
study sought to determine the responses of teaching staff more so than those of non-
teaching staff. The sample sought to receive responses in the ratio of 71% teaching
staff to 29% non-teaching.
Questionnaire response
Seventy-nine responses were received from the six participating organisations. The
occupational category source of these responses is shown in Table 1.
Table 1: Respondents by occupational category
Respondent group
Number
Percentage
General staff
19
24.1%
Teacher/ teaching support
52
65.8%
Senior manager
8
10.1%
Total
79
100.0%
Summary of findings
The results to the research questions are shown in Table 2 below.
Table 2: Research question results
Question
Result *
Are TAFE staff lifelong learners?
Yes
Are TAFE organisations learning organisations?
Yes
Do TAFE divisions of dual sector universities more strongly demonstrate
the characteristics of a learning organisation than do single sector TAFE
institutes?
Yes
Do rural/regional TAFE institutes more strongly demonstrate the
characteristics of a learning organisation than do metropolitan TAFE
institutes?
Yes
Results and comments
Are TAFE organisations learning organisations?
Table 3 presents a summary of responses to questions regarding TAFE institutes as learning
organisations.
Table 3: Learning organisation results
Characteristic
Total
Dual
sector
Regional /
rural
Metropol'
n
Learning opportunities provided for
staff
91.0%
100.0%
86.7%
90.0%
Shared organisation vision
84.8%
88.9%
87.1%
80.0%
Openness to change
79.2%
88.2%
83.3%
70.0%
Inter-unit cooperation
65.4%
52.9%
83.3%
53.3%
Team learning opportunities
71.5%
76.5%
80.0%
60.0%
Development of human capital
72.4%
61.1%
80.0%
71.4%
Sixty-eight (86.1%) of staff in TAFE organisations believe that their organisations are
learning organisations. Dual-sector universities (94.4%) rank ahead of rural/ regional
TAFE institutes (89.2%), that in turn rank ahead of Metropolitan TAFE institutes
(80%) as learning organisations. Of the occupational groups, senior managers (50%)
were the least supportive of the contention that their organisations were not learning
organisations. Conversely, 94.7% of general/ administrative staff believed that they
worked for a learning organisation, followed by teachers/ teaching support staff, of
which 88.5% believed that their organisations were learning organisations.
Kearns (1999) identified six characteristics (italicised in the discussion below) within
the profile of a learning organisation. The questionnaire results for these
characteristics confirm that TAFE organisations are learning organisations, although
there is some reservation in making this statement.
Ninety-one percent of TAFE organisations provide their staff with learning opportunities.
All respondents in dual-sector universities have the opportunity to participate in
learning activities, 90% of TAFE staff in metropolitan TAFE institutes have a similar
opportunity whilst 86.7% of staff in rural/ regional TAFE institutes also have access
to these opportunities.
Building a shared vision proved problematic for all TAFE organisations, but the result
is still particularly high (84.8%). Dual-sector universities again ranked ahead of the
other organisations (88.9%), however rural/ regional TAFE institutes (87.1%) ranked
ahead of larger metropolitan TAFE organisations (80%) in this matter.
As issues that impact upon organisational performance are taken into consideration,
TAFE organisations appear to have some difficulty in meeting the criteria supporting
their classification as learning organisations.
Openness to change and adaptability is demonstrated but is clearly questioned by many
staff. 79.2% of the respondents believed that their organisations were open to change
and were adaptable. Again, the dual-sector universities (88.2%) ranked ahead of
rural/ regional TAFE institutes (83.3%). Quite clearly, however, metropolitan TAFE
institutes have some difficulty in demonstrating this characteristic, with only 70% of
respondents classifying their organisations as open to change and adaptable.
Kearns (1999) identified adopting a systems perspective as a characteristic of the
learning organisation. This characteristic caters for interconnectedness, applied
system perspectives, ecological perspectives and the fostering of helicopter vision
among staff. We have interpreted this to mean adopting a whole-of-organisation
approach and asked the question, 'generally, do units within the organisation operate
cooperatively ?' Whilst our classification of Kearns (1999) may be challenged, the
response to the question asked is disconcerting. Rural/ regional TAFE institutes
(83.3%) are more cooperative between themselves. However only 53.3% of staff in
metropolitan TAFE institutes and 52.9% of TAFE staff in dual-sector universities
believe that their organisations demonstrate inter-unit cooperation. Quite clearly, this
aspect of operational activity (65.4% overall), or lack thereof, in TAFE organisations
9
challenges the initial hypothesis that TAFE organisations are learning organisations.
It may well be contended that individual units within the overall organisation are
learning organisations, but the organisation when taken as a whole is not!
Similar results and concerns are identified when the value and support of team learning
is considered. Team learning is better encouraged in rural/ regional TAFE institutes
(80%), and is evident in dual-sector universities (76.5%). However, an apparent lack
of comparable support for this in metropolitan TAFE institutes (60%) reduces the
overall result to 71.5%.
Finally the commitment to the development of human capital provides for some
interesting results. The overall result for this characteristic was 72.4%. This result is
buoyed by the strong performance of rural/ regional TAFE institutes (80%), who are
perceived as more strongly committed to the development of their staff, ranking well
ahead of metropolitan TAFE institutes (71.4%) and dual-sector universities (61.1%).
When taken with the result of the provision of learning opportunities (characteristic
1), the outcome for the dual-sector universities appears inconsistent. However, the
provision of learning opportunities and a commitment to the development of staff
are two very different things.
Firstly an organisation may provide opportunities for staff to learn, but if those
opportunities are not relevant, or are contrary to the staff's learning needs, then this
may be perceived as a lack of commitment. For example, learning opportunities may
be made available in a range of activities such as application software skills, human
resource management issues and general learning. But this is quite different to issues
pertaining to Training Packages, VET in Schools, workplace delivery and assessment.
Yes, learning is available, but it does not match with staff learning needs - resulting
in a perceived lack of commitment. Certainly such a conclusion may be justified
when taken into account with the support of team learning. In this characteristic,
dual-sector universities demonstrate a much weaker result when compared to
rural/ regional TAFE institutes. It may well be that in team learning situations, TAFE
staff in dual sector universities are provided with exposure to the types of learning
they need - and the provision of learning in a team or unit context is not aligned to
the organisation demonstrating a commitment to the development of its staff.
When compared to single-sector TAFE institutes, dual-sector universities are rated
higher by their TAFE staff as being learning organisations (94.4%) than single sector
TAFE institutes (80.4%).
The ranking of dual-sector universities as learning organisations (Q. 8) ahead of
single-sector TAFE institutes per se is challenged when an analysis is undertaken
between the three organisational categories used in this paper. An analysis by
demonstrated characteristic produces an interesting outcome. By averaging the
ranking of each type of organisation, rural/ regional TAFE institutes (1.6 7) rank
ahead of dual-sector universities (1.83), whereas metropolitan TAFE institutes (2.5)
are least able to demonstrate the characteristics of a learning organisation.
Rural/ regional TAFE institutes have staff who believe that their organisations
strongly demonstrate a degree of unity (cooperation), team learning and a
commitment to the development of their people. In addition, they ranked slightly
behind dual sector universities in the sharing of the organisation's vision (87.1% as
against 88.9%). However, a larger sample is required to provide a definitive result for
these two types of organisations.
On the other hand, despite the small sample, metropolitan TAFE institutes were
quite clearly less able to demonstrate their capacity as learning organisations,
achieving a rate of 80% or less for all but one (learning opportunities) of the
characteristics.
Are TAFE staff lifelong learners?
All teaching/ teaching support staff believed that they were lifelong learners, a
particularly positive result given the changing nature of their work and identity as
identified by Chappell (1999), and their role in teaching others to become lifelong
learners. Surprisingly, one (12.5%) senior manager did not classify him/herself as a
lifelong learner, with three (16.7%) general/administrative staff giving the same
response. Of the 74 lifelong learners, ten (13.5%) did not believe that their
organisations were learning organisations.
The characteristics of a lifelong learner as identified by Kearns (1999) were used as
the basis for determining the status of the outcome. (Note: there was an additional
inquiry to determine personal capacity to change, and interpersonal effectiveness
was modified to learning from others and sharing of personal knowledge). The
percentage of respondents who agreed that they demonstrated each characteristic is
shown in Table 4.
Table 4: Lifelong learner results
Characteristic
Total
Dual
sector
Regional /
rural
Metropol'
n
Inquiring mind
97.4%
94.1%
96.8%
100.0%
Concept of the big picture
96.1%
94.4%
100.0%
96.6%
Commitment to personal development
98.7%
100.0%
100.0%
96.7%
Capacity to change
100%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Learning from other team members
97.5%
88.9%
100.0%
100.0%
Sharing your knowledge with other
team members
94.9%
88.9%
100.0%
93.3%
Ability to use modem information
technologies
94.9%
88.9%
96.7%
96.7%
Awareness of different types of
learning
97.5%
100.0%
96.8%
96.7%
Quite clearly all respondents believed that they demonstrated the characteristics of a
lifelong learner. Of interest is the apparent lack of knowledge sharing that takes
place within dual-sector universities (88.9%) and metropolitan TAFE institutes
(93.3%), however there is little causal information that can expand upon this
divergence between the organisational types at this stage of our analysis.
11
Concerns arise when one lifelong learning characteristic ('knowledge sharing') is
linked to the learning organisation characteristic 'inter-unit cooperation'. Of the 74
who believed that they shared their knowledge with others within their team, 23
(31.1%) did not believe the organisation demonstrated the characteristic of inter-unit
cooperation. Given that these people are prepared to share their knowledge with
others, albeit within their team, it is most likely that they would also be prepared to
share their knowledge with others from within the same organisation. This result
may indicate that there are other variables that interfere with TAFE organisations'
capacities to cooperate internally and effectively share knowledge.
Conclusion
Final conclusions regarding TAFE institutes as learning organisations and TAFE staff
as lifelong learners are not appropriate at this stage. Evaluative statements
supporting the closed questions within the questionnaire are still being analysed.
There are quite clearly some inconsistencies in the results and a broader study of
TAFE institutes as learning organisations - and their staff as lifelong learners - is
clearly needed.
TAFE staff have indicated that they believe their organisations are learning
organisations and that they themselves are lifelong learners. Yet there is evidence to
suggest that TAFE staff are not risk takers, and their reluctance is related to a fear of
criticism from management. Additional evidence is required to definitively support
this statement. However, were it to be true, then the assertion that TAFE institutes
are learning organisations and TAFE staff are lifelong learners is certainly open to
broader debate.
Future research
The results from this research have generated more questions than they may have
answered. The following is a range of issues that have been identified within this
survey as requiring further research.
1. Why don't all TAFE senior managers classify their organisations as learning
organisations? Whilst it can be inferred that the notion of the learning
organisation is part of an evolving culture, and as such it may be accepted
that not all organisations have evolved to the same degree, this question
needs to be asked. Seven (87.5%) of TAFE senior managers believed that their
organisation was a learning organisation. One senior manager believed that
his/her organisation was not. Is the degree of evolution the only explanation,
or are there other factors that these respondents have identified and their
peers have chosen to ignore?
2. Is organisation size a factor in creating a learning organisation? Do smaller
organisations and those with fewer campuses create a greater sense of unity
and 'community'? The rural/ regional TAFE organisations are much smaller
than dual sector universities and metropolitan TAFE institutes that
participated in this survey. However, these smaller organisations certainly
performed much better than their metropolitan TAFE counterparts and, it
may be argued, at least as well as the dual-sector universities.
12
3. In larger organisations, does the unit or team within the structure develop its
own character to overcome the difficulties (Lei et al 1999) presented by a
'whole of organisation' approach?
Alternatively, is the prevailing organisation culture a factor that encourages
or discourages the 'evolution' of learning organisations? Dual-sector
universities are historically perceived as more open and rigorous in their
discussion of management and 'academic' issues. Consequently, their culture
encapsulates many of the characteristics pertaining to the learning
organisation.
4. Why do regional/ rural TAFE institutes demonstrate characteristics that
support cooperative behaviour? Again, is size a factor in determining this
matter? As an organisation grows in size, a bureaucracy forms and internal
politics and alliances create divisions and in some cases a sense of ownership
of the intellectual capital, thereby reducing the knowledge sharing capability
of the organisation (Lei et al 1999).
5. Is there a conflict between the learning needs of TAFE staff in dual-sector
universities and the provision of learning opportunities?
6. Why do dual-sector universities perform better as learning organisations
when compared to metropolitan TAFE institutes? Is it a question of TAFE
staff in dual-sector universities having access to a broader range of resources
(ie universities offering many services to their TAFE staff at a lower cost or no
cost while single-sector TAFE institutes buy these services in or pay for
them)? Does access to a shared and/ or larger infrastructure provide TAFE
staff in dual-sector universities with better access to some of the tools of the
learning organisation (eg libraries, computer facilities) than are available to
staff in single-sector TAFE institutes?
7. Is personal self-image a contributing factor in creating the lifelong learner? Is
location a factor in creating a stronger self-image? In large cities, do
universities have a higher profile than do TAFE institutes? In rural/ regional
environments, are TAFE institutes more valued community members than
metropolitan TAFE institutes?
8. Is learning in a smaller organisation more visible and does it promote a
culture that supports knowledge sharing?
9. Is professional development in a metropolitan environment perceived as
individually focused rather than organisation-focused?
10. What impact does job mobility play in promoting an organisational focus?
11. Are TAFE staff risk takers? Are mistakes in TAFE considered learning
experiences? Are TAFE staff reluctant to take risks because they are
concerned about personal repercussions?
13
Acknowledgements
The research team would like to acknowledge the cooperation and participation of
the following organisations and their staff:
• Central Metropolitan College of TAFE
• Kangan-Batman Institute of TAFE
• Mt Isa Institute of TAFE
• Northern Territory University (TAFE Division)
• Sunraysia Institute of TAFE
• Swinburne University of Technology (TAFE Division)
References
Chappell C (1999) Issues of teacher identity in a restructuring VET system. Working
Paper no 31, RCVET.
Ferrier F and Whittingham K (2000) Emerging skill requirements of the Australian
economy. Centre for Curriculum Innovation and Development Seminar Series,
Victoria University (unpublished).
Fisher S R and White M A (2000) Downsizing in a learning organisation: are there
hidden costs? Academy of Management Review, vol 25, no 1.
http://web6.infotrac.galegroup.co...xrn 1 0 A59481965?sw aep=vut main
(accessed 7 April 2000).
Glynn M A, Lant T K and Milliken F J (1994) Mapping learning processes in
organizations. Cited in S R Fisher and M A White (2000) Downsizing in a learning
organisation: are there hidden costs? Academy of Management Review, vol 25, no 1.
http://web6.infotrac.galegroup.co...xrn 1 0 A59481965?sw aep=vut main
(accessed 7 April 2000).
Kearns P (1999) Lifelong learning - implications for VET: a discussion paper. UTS,
NCVER.
Kirnane D E (1999) Getting wise to knowledge management. Association
Management, vol 21, no 8.
http://web6.infotrac.galegroup.co. ..rn 10 0 A55777694?sw aep=vut main
(accessed 7 April 2000).
Kline P and Saunders B (1993) Ten steps to a learning organization. Great Ocean
Publishers.
Lei D, Slocum J and Pitts R (1999) Designing organisations for competitive
advantage: the power of unlearning and learning. Organisational Dynamics, winter,
pp 24-38.
McGill M E and Slocum Jr J W (1995) Executive development in learning
organizations. American Journal of Management Development, vol 1, no 2, pp 23-30.
14
Ralph D. South Australian Centre for Lifelong Learning and Development.
http : / / www .premcab .sa. go v. au / lif elongdearning / (accessed 8 January 2001).
Contact details
Sue Holden
Ph: +61 3 9284 8351
Email: Sue.Holden@vu.edu.au
15
r of t j .^-2
0
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI)
National Library of Education (NLE)
Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC)
REPRODUCTION RELEASE
(Specific Document)
I. DOCUMENT IDENTIFICATION:
Title: p
! sq(l<UL(X in £
|< ^
[ 'h ^ /
Anwvcu -1
i i
c c_ JlCC i
f
Author(s):
Corporate Source:
Publication Date:
II. REPRODUCTION RELEASE:
m jh£ ^ s , sem,n ? te f “ as P° ss,b ' e tlme| y and significant materials of interest to the educational community, documents announced in the
TnH eiertnnir ^ ° H ° SV if Educatlon < RIE )' are usual| y made available to users in microfiche, reproduced paper copy
ol M , m ' and f°H d thr0U ^ th f ,f RIC DoCument Reproduction Service (EDRS). Credit is given to the source of each document, and i
reproduction release is granted, one of the following notices is affixed to the document.
If permission is granted to reproduce and disseminate the identified document,
of the page.
please CHECK ONE of the following three options and sign at the bottom
The sample sticker shown below will be
affixed to ail Level 1 documents
PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND
DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL HAS
BEEN GRANTED BY
TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES
INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)
i
Check here for Level 1 release, permitting reproduction
and dissemination In microfiche or other ERIC archival
media (e.g.. electronic) and paper copy.
The sample sticker shown below will be
affixed to all Level 2A documents
The sample sticker shown below will be
affixed to all Level 2B documents
PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND
DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL IN
MICROFICHE, AND IN ELECTRONIC MEDIA
FOR ERIC COLLECTION SUBSCRIBERS ONLY
HAS BEEN GRANTED BY
PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND
DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL IN
MICROFICHE ONLY HAS BEEN GRANTED BY
A®.
A®
c3>
TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES
INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)
J
TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES
INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)
2A
2B
Level 2A Level 2B
I I
□ □
Check here for Level 2A release, permitting reproduction Check here for Level 2B release, permitting
an dissemination in microfiche and In electronic media reproduction and dissemination in microfiche only
for ERIC archival collection subscribers only
„ , Documents will be processed as Indicated provided reproduction quality permits.
If permission to reproduce Is granted, but no box is checked, documents will be processed at Level 1.
hereby grant to the Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) nonexclusive permission to reproduce and disseminate this document
as indicated above. Reproduction from the ERIC microfiche or electronic media by persons other than ERIC employees and its system
contractors requires permission from the copyright holder. Exception is made for non-profit reproduction by libraries and other service agencies
to satisfy information needs of educators in response to discrete inquiries y
^ -
Printed Nama/PosrtiorVTitle: ^^, 77 ,*^^
X r-’-f /ZC rMl U , Vfs?
Organization/ Ad dress: Loclcsc* =^ Q
Telephone: _ -
feuaoy? sg-zofy?
FAX C'X C 1 %C c \ MCX'f
E-Mail AddreX: -v
Da,e: t£!l\ol
Sign
here,-*
5e
ERIC